Time out
 

A1 has ball ; B1 grabs ball (held) can either coach ask for a time out (Ref has not made a call yet).

Sure. Either coach can request a time out. The issue is whether it should be granted. Is there player control at this point? That would be the key to the answer to your question.

My Opinion: Held Ball ...
 

Sounds like both A1 and B1 have player control. Does that mean that either coach, or a player on either team, can request and be granted a timeout? Or does it mean that the official should call a held ball, even if opponents do not have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness?

4-25-1 A held ball occurs when opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness


No control, no TO.

A1 has the ball, so Team A has team control.

Until the held ball is whistled, Team A can request a timeout.

Actually, both can't. Team A has team control. Team control doesn't end until the ball is dead, there's a shot or Team B gains player/team control. In this play, there's never player/team control by Team B

The rule is addressing control of the ball, not team or player control.

Team A has player/team control and can request a timeout prior to a held ball being declared.

Are you sure about that? Isn't the underlying point of a held ball that team A and team B both have control? The player from team B IS holding the ball....which fits the requirements for establishing team control...yet team A hasn't lost control since they're still holding it. If that were not the case, we'd never have a held ball.

Here's my point. We can't have it both ways.

If it's held ball, then there should be a whistle.

If there's not a whistle, then there's no held ball and Team A still has team control. You can't deny them a timeout.

Yes, but until a held ball is whistled team A is the ONLY team with team control.

What makes team control...having a player holding the ball. Is player B holding the ball? If so, they've met the definition for team control.

A held ball is called, in a sense, because both teams have control.

Yes but when both ARE holding the ball...

----

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85 View Post
4-25-1 A held ball occurs when opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness

No control, no TO.
The rule is addressing control of the ball, not team or player control.

Team A has player/team control and can request a timeout prior to a held ball being declared.

----

So team a has team and player control BUT B does not.

Once both teams get there hands on the ball, it can only be either dual player/team control or no player control for either (although team control may persist). A timeout is either no longer an option for either team or a timeout is an option for both.

(Now that I've thought about this a bit more, I'm going to flip on my reasoning but the result is the same.)

I believe neither player has control. Perhaps team control doesn't end (this doesn't really matter), but player control does end.

The rule you cited doesn't refer to which team/player is which in referring to not being able to obtain control but refers to them as opponents. It is saying that NEITHER player has control when both are holding the ball. It establishes the concept that player control exists only when a player is holding the ball alone. If you think about it, the whole point of player control is that the player is in control of the ball and is free to do what they wish with the ball (dribble, shoot, pass). And that is something they can not do if someone else is also holding it.

Once B gets their hands on the ball, player A (not necessarily team A) has lost player control and the option of a timeout is gone.

The only things that can happen next is that someone gains player control by pulling the ball free or a held ball is called.

And then a time out request may be granted to either team. Though it probably will not be wanted in most cases.

The rules do not support dual team or player control. Also, the rule referred to above does not address player control. The rule refers to physically controlling the ball, not team or player control.

Maybe it's semantics, if both players are holding the ball AND the official hits the whistle, THEN it becomes a held ball. Until the held ball is whistled, Team A still has player and team control.

As a matter of practice, I always see the timeout granted if it's whistled before the held ball is whistled.

OK, another question related to this.

Suppose the given scenario does indeed occur and you have a double whistle. The L is calling a jump ball and the T is calling for a time out by Team B. Do you then grant the TO and put the ball in play by AP rules (would be my thought) or.......?

Robby

Since I'm pretty admant that Team B can't call timout in this situation, I think you know my answer.

get together, figure out which happened first. If the TO happened first, offense keeps it. If the held ball (not the whistle, but the held ball) happened before the TO (request, not whistle), then go AP. You can assume the requesting coach doesn't want the TO, but I ask him anyway.

Maybe this is putting the cart before the horse, but here's a thought...

The only time we honor a time-out request from the team who would not be in-bounding the ball after that time out, is when the ball is dead.

On a potential held ball situation (A1 and B2 gripping the ball simultaneously), the ball is not dead. If you honor the time-out request on a live ball, you're saying that team has player control (one exception notwithstanding). So, if you honor a time-out request from either side during a tie-up, you're saying that both players have player control, and the team that calls time out first would get the in-bounds after the time-out.

For this reason, I agree with BBR. I don't believe you can give Team B an opportunity to call time-out until they earn control, solely. (Is there such a thing as dual control?) I don't think you can honor team A's request during a tie-up, either. My knee-jerk reaction is to ignore any requests, and call the held ball.

(The aforementioned exception is when you mistakenly whistle a time-out when that team didn't have player control. In that case, you have to grant it, anyway.)

This is where I disagree. I think the rule IS talking about player control....that it is lost when another player also has their hands on the ball.

So since there is only 1 ball only 1 team can have PC/TC.
So when B1 grabs the ball can one correctly argue that the ball is no longer in play and as such is really a dead ball ie free for any team to get control off? (and if they can't a jump ball etc etc)

If this thinking is correct (idea based on discussion above) no coach should be able to ask for a TO.

Do you even know what a dead ball is?
Your thinking is not correct.

I hit the enter key after using the words "dead ball". Thanks for correcting me
So if no PC or TC the ball is in play and belongs to no one. Thus NO TO can be called. What is wrong with that?

There is team control still, as nothing has happened to end it. The only time you'll have a live ball on the court with no team control is during and following either a try or a throw in.

If a coach requests a TO during the time I'm trying to decide if I should call a held ball, it's still a held ball.

IMO...Snaq's put it in a nutshell.

I just can't see rules support for granting a TO when two players BOTH have possesion of the ball...(as Camron stated)

IOW...are we "rewarding" the team in control for requesting a TO before we put air in the whistle for a held ball? (BBR's view?)

Quibble: I think you forgot one. ;)

Easy to do since the advent of the AP.

Yep, and I hereby sentence myself to penance.

50 tosses at the center circle for you.

I honestly don't know how you can think that when the rule clearly says "have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness." Seems to me it's obviously talking about control of the ball.

But if you think so, then please cite the rule that says so. I've looked at 4-12 until I'm blue in the face and I can't find a thing that supports that.

If both players are holding the ball, then we have a held ball and we need to blow the whistle.

We're not rewarding anything. We're awarding a timeout to the team that has possession of the ball. Coaches call timeouts to avoid a held ball, clodely guarded sitch, BC violation, etc. all the time. This is no different.

Play:

A1 has the ball and B1 attempts to grab it. Obviously, there's going to be a held ball. The trail blows the whistle as Coach A has requested a timeout. A second later, the lead blows his whistle for a held ball.

Are you guys honestly going to tell me that you're going to ignore the first whistle and go with the second whistle?

I have a difficult time believing anyone would answer yes to that question.

No, we're awarding a timeout to the team that has possession of the ball.

Play:

A1 has the ball and B1 attempts to grab it. Obviously, there's going to be a held ball. The trail blows the whistle as Coach A has requested a timeout. A second later, the lead blows his whistle for a held ball.

Are you guys honestly going to tell me that you're going to ignore the first whistle and go with the second whistle?

I have a difficult time believing anyone would answer yes to that question.[/QUOTE]

+1

Agreed.

:confused: Why? If you haven't called a held ball, it's by default, still PC/TC of the person who had it. To me, this is simple. Grant TO for original team in control up until the point you deem it a held ball. If you deem it a held ball prior to hearing the TO request, then call the held ball. That's the 2 choices here. Either it was a held ball before the TO request (held ball) or the TO was prior to the held ball (grant TO).

Exactly.

Frankly, because there's no time requirement for a held ball. The held ball starts when the players have grasped it, even if it takes me a second to recognize the situation.

We only have two types of control. What kind of control do you think it is referring to?

Since it is talking about two individual players, it must be player control that it is talking about....as opposed to team control. A player has control of the ball has player control and vice versa.

The word control is used throughout the rule book. it does not always refer to player or team control. In this situation, it refers to control of the ball.

Again, cite a rule reference that supports your position.

Also, I noticed you didn't respond to the play I posted. What would you do?

PLAY
A1 has the ball and B1 attempts to grab it. Obviously, there's going to be a held ball. The trail blows the whistle as Coach A has requested a timeout. A second later, the lead blows his whistle for a held ball.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you're going to ignore the first whistle and go with the second whistle?

Again, how are you going to rule on this play.

PLAY
A1 has the ball and B1 attempts to grab it. Obviously, there's going to be a held ball. The trail blows the whistle as Coach A has requested a timeout. A second later, the lead blows his whistle for a held ball.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you're going to ignore the first whistle and go with the second whistle?

B1 attempts to grab it? Does he grab it or not?

And way to complicate matters with the 2nd official; no, I'm not going with the 2nd whistle. If the on-ball official holds the whistle too long, and the off-ball official recognizes a TO request before the held ball whistle, I'll go with the TO.

But while I personally am not going to recognize the TO request when there is "dual possession," I'm not going to get into a pissing match with a partner over it either.

[quote=Snaqwells;710664]B1 attempts to grab it? Does he grab it or not?[/quote

Who knows? These things happen so fast in a game. That's my point, that the whistles are really the only reference points we had with regard to the request and the held ball. The off ball official won't know whether there's four hands on the ball or not unless he hears a whistle.

But isn't that the most likely possibility? Whether two or three man, you're likely to have one offical focused on the ball and timeout being granted by an off the ball official.

That's because you'll see and whistle a held ball when it occurs. And again, that's our reference point.

True, but I tend to hold my whistle a moment to see if one player or the other can safely wrest control from the other.

If, in that brief moment of indecision, coach requests a TO, I see myself moving directly to HB. That's how I've done it, and it's served me relatively well. I can't imagine being able to say the same thing if a HB were to occur in front of B's coach and A's coach is granted a TO and possession simply because a TO was requested in the time between the ball being grasped by both sides and my decision to whistle for the HB.

"Why does he get the ball?"
"His player had control."
"So did mine, why wasn't it a held ball?"

Again, it seems to me the held ball starts when the grasping starts, even if we take a moment to determine if it's sufficiently "lodged" between players.

I'll answer it...

Trail gets the call...s/he was first, so s/he obviously heard the TO request BEFORE the held ball.

Again, If I see a held ball situation and I haven't quite put air in the whistle for it...

...and then, the HC requests a TO...he ain't getting the TO just because I havent' put air in my whistle. In my mind it was a held ball PRIOR to the TO request.

If you saw the held ball but, hadn't blown the whistle for the held ball...and at approx. the same time the HC requests a TO...are you saying you would grant the TO just because you have not blown the whistle for a held ball?:confused:

The word player is implied in the reference to "two opponents".
You play is ambiguous. No one can know that the call should be with the information given. It appears that you may be saying the ball is not yet held, so a timeout would be correct. But, I can't tell what the sequence of events is from what you posted.

It seems that basic common sense is all you need to know that a player doesn't have player control of a ball held by another player.

No, I'll blow whichever came first.


Implied. LOL! :D

Not sure why, Snaq and Rookiedude didn't have any trouble with the sequence. A whistle for a TO and a second later, a whistle for a held ball. Very clear.

Even if it's contrary to the rules, right? :rolleyes:

Have fun, I'm done, we just won't agree on this one. But officials everywhere will continue to grant the timeout if that whistle comes first.

If you replace "whistle" above with "request", does that simplify it so everybody should agree? If a legal TO request is made before the held ball is called, there is NO justification under the rules NOT to grant that TO request,

No idea...I've tried to make it as simple as possible from the get-go. :p

I'll leave it to you. :)

I'll go with "if a legal TO request is made before the held ball is [b]observed (or recognized, or whatever) by the official[b] there is no justigfication not to grant the TO request."

The point being that there might be a delay between the official seeing the held ball and getting the whistle blown.

And, just having B's hands on the ball is not a held ball. It's not held until the official judges it to be so.

That works well also by rule. And it's basically all that Tony was saying.

It's the same delay between the official hearing the TO request and then blowing the whistle to grant the TO request as recognizing the held ball and then blowing the whistle to call that held ball.

If there's a problem, the officials have to get together and decide who recognized what first----> the TO request or the held ball.

Your play only says that their is GOING to be a held ball when the first whistle for a TO is blown. It sounds like that someone is anticipating the play, not describing what has occurred. Seeing that a held ball is about to occur is irrelevant. We you saying that there actually was a held ball and the official just blew the whistle really late, after the timeout whistle, or was there not really a held ball yet until after the timeout whistle. The instant that matters is the one where the defender grabs the ball, not where you anticipate a held ball.

You mean the rule that says if a player is holding the ball, they have player control? Doesn't that apply to any player on the court? Even a defender? How can you call time out if a player of the other team has player control? :confused:

Yes, which is why we grant the timeout to A1, because he has player control. Works against your argument.

A defender can't have player control, as by definition, a defender is on the team that does not have the ball. Further, there's no such thing as dual player control, as you attempted to claim earlier in the thread.

You can't. But you can grant a timeout to Coach A since A1 has player control until the held ball is whistled.

Hope that clears that up for you.

You don't have to be Einstein to understand that one official whistles a timeout a split second before the second official whistles a held ball.

My question to you is are you going to go with the timeout or the held ball?

It's a real SIMPLE question. But I understand why you're playing dumb. You don't want to answer my play because it will prove my point.

Thanks, I have your answer. :)

But for some reason, Cam refuses to see it.

The instance that really matters is what came first...the TO request or the held ball. That's the decision the officials have to jointly make. In both cases the actual whistle is irrelevant.

The play isn't really different than a player in the air making a TO request before he lands OOB. YOU have to decide if the TO request was made before the player landed OOB. In the situation being discussed, just replace "landed OOB" with a "held ball". You call 'em both the same way.

What is the definition of player control? It simply says that a player who is holding a live ball inbound has player control. Is there any reference to defense/offense? No, the rule that defines player control applies equally to every player on the court. Player control establishes who is on offense/defense, not the other way around.

If BOTH A1 and B1 have their hands on the ball in a similar manner, by definition, you have two choices. They either both have player control or neither does. If you say that A1 has PC, then you're also saying B1 has PC. If you're saying B1 doesn't have PC, you're saying that A1 doesn't have PC. The definition of player control doesn't support any other set of options.

Then you add the held ball rule which establishes that neither player has control when they both have their hands on the ball.

So, no one can call timeout once both players have their hands on the ball....neither has player control. Player control and being in control of the ball are synonymous.


If the timeout request comes BEFORE team B gets their hands on the ball...timeout. That is simple...the order of the whistles doesn't matter. Your play implies it does and your play doesn't indicate WHEN team B actually got their hands on the ball relative to the timeout request. The officials have to figure out which occurred first, not who blew thier whistle the quickest.